It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hoodwinked at Shanksville: Fairy Tail

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   
Shanksville Illusion

1) Rumsfeld said flight 93 was shot down > Homer Simpson Slip Up?

2) Debris over 3 to 4 mile radius> Little Itty Bitty Pieces?

3) Flight 93 said to have crashed in the vicinity of or at at Camp David
a) 9/11/78 Signing of Camp DavidMiddle East Peace Accords
b) 9/11/91 Bush senior Speaks of New World Order
c) 9/11/41 Ground breaking for Pentagon
d) 9/11/01 15 defense exercises in the morning

4) United Airlines 767 flight 175 said to have crashed at Somerset, PA.

5) This means 5 planes crashed that day.

Tower 1
Tower 2
Pentagon
Somerset
Camp David

Shanksville? No Way

www.youtube.com...




posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
I grew up about 500 yards from.......



[SNIP]

Everything you claimed is a lie.

How come everytime a debunker gets burned on this thread they have to call in a " I was there" forum member to clarify it.


I call bs.... nice try.... I have seen all the evidence and your full of it.

Mod Edit: Profanity and Censor circumvention

[edit on 13-6-2008 by Gemwolf]

Everything I claimed is a lie? And you know this how? First, I'm not a "debunker" which my post, if you had bothered to read in it's entirety, will show you.

Second, I do not care if you believe me or not. All of the old people that lived in that area at the time of the crash (the one I was referring to as having grown up near, not the Shanksville crash) KNOWS what it looked like, albeit from hearsay sources.

Third, I can only draw the conclusion from your comments that you didn't even bother reading past the first few words that you quoted.



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Can any skeptic explain how that faint tail-like impression in the grass connected to the Shanks crater occurred and why there is no trace of a 757 tail section?



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by im_being_censored
Can any skeptic explain how that faint tail-like impression in the grass connected to the Shanks crater occurred and why there is no trace of a 757 tail section?


You've asked this already, and Ivan, a troofer, answered correctly.


Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by im_being_censored
What caused this faint "vert tail-like" impression in the grass skeptics?

1. What caused that "vert tail-like" impression in the grass that's shaped like a 757's tail?

2. Where is the marks Flight 93's tail section left if it hit that soft patch of ground so hard that it was essentially obliterated by the soft ground?


The verticle tail scar is not even that, it too was present pre911.




posted on Jun, 22 2008 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seymour Butz

Originally posted by im_being_censored
Can any skeptic explain how that faint tail-like impression in the grass connected to the Shanks crater occurred and why there is no trace of a 757 tail section?

You've asked this already, and Ivan, a troofer, answered correctly.

Originally posted by IvanZana
The verticle tail scar is not even that, it too was present pre911.

Your proof it was there pre-9/11 is where?

If it was there pre-9/11, wouldn't that be one of the most amazing coincidences in history that an impression the size and shape of a 757's vert stab was already in the ground within feet of where Flight 93's tail should have hit when it supposedly crashed because of an ultra rare suicide hijacking??? A trillion to one odds would be a very very conservative guess.

If that faint tail-like impression was not from Flight 93's tail, where did 93's tail section strike the ground and essentially obliterate from after?



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Skeptics are having a really tough time with this thread.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Skeptics, did Flight 93's tail section leave a mark anywhere in the soft ground?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by im_being_censored
Skeptics, did Flight 93's tail section leave a mark anywhere in the soft ground?


There was no tail imprint or wing imprints. There is unroken unburnt grass not to mention not enough dirt was displaces.

The crater is consistant with something the size of a small van crashing or exploding in the small 10x30ft crater in Shanksville.

But the main point is that Flight 93 as the Boeing 757 did not crash in the Shanksville field in 2001. All the evidence and images do not support a fully fueled comercial airliner.



posted on Jul, 8 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by im_being_censored
Skeptics, did Flight 93's tail section leave a mark anywhere in the soft ground?
There was no tail imprint or wing imprints.

Well there were "tail" imprints and "wing" imprints. That's why the official story wants us to believe.

But on the issue of the "tail" imprint, the skeptics are running away from that imprint. I wonder why?



posted on Jul, 9 2008 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by im_being_censored
What caused this faint "vert tail-like" impression in the grass skeptics?



Seems like you guys agree that there is no way it could have been caused by Flight 93's tail section slamming down on it at 580mph and shattering into millions of pieces so small you can't see them.

So that leaves you with quite a dilemma:

1. What caused that "vert tail-like" impression in the grass that's shaped like a 757's tail?

2. Where is the marks Flight 93's tail section left if it hit that soft patch of ground so hard that it was essentially obliterated by the soft ground?

Skeptic "Boone" thinks that faint vert stab-like impression was caused by Flight 93's.

Do the rest of you skeptics concur?



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 03:45 AM
link   
When are the skeptics going to explain the faint-tail-imprint-yet-no-tail anomaly?



posted on Aug, 3 2008 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by im_being_censored
Skeptics, did Flight 93's tail section leave a mark anywhere in the soft ground?


There was no tail imprint or wing imprints. There is unroken unburnt grass not to mention not enough dirt was displaces.

The crater is consistant with something the size of a small van crashing or exploding in the small 10x30ft crater in Shanksville.

But the main point is that Flight 93 as the Boeing 757 did not crash in the Shanksville field in 2001. All the evidence and images do not support a fully fueled comercial airliner.


I guess we all agree.

Godd job, pat pat.



posted on Dec, 3 2008 @ 04:36 PM
link   
you your self in the video said "The tail section USUALLY survives" well, last time I checked that is true, usually, not always! and in this case it obviously didn't.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Just one point that no-one seems to have brought up...

It seems that people are trying to argue that the tail fin is not made to be structurally rigid, as it would simply add further weight. I can buy that. But at the end of the day, the outside is still made of sheets of aluminium, which haas a tendency to tear, rather than shatter or 'disintegrate', but I'll come back to that.

The same people want me to believe that the tail fin left that mark on the ground and 'disintegrated' or 'obliterated' into many tiny pieces. I'm thinking the impact required to disintegrate sheets of aluminium would be quite severe. I have trouble buying this because it implies that upon initial impact with the ground, the entire tail fin shatters into tiny pieces - however as the predominant movement of the tail fin is towards the ground, a lot of these smaller pieces would be on the ground directly around the 'fin outline', and not scattered off in the breeze somewhere.

But HERE'S WHAT I CAN'T BUY...

I can't buy that the ground was 'soft enough that it swallowed an entire plane', but right next to it the ground was so hard that it 'disintegrated the entire tail fin into tiny pieces' (my paraphrasing here, not direct quotes).

It seems you can't have it both ways - either the ground was hard enough to disintegrate the plane, or it was soft enough to swallow it whole. Surely it's that simple?

Rewey



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Its a strip mine scar yall






A strip mine scar




The crater in the middle is ordinance blown up to fake a fuselage.




And thats what it is.



posted on Jun, 9 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

"I looked up and it was Flight 93, barely 50ft above me. It was coming down in a 45 degree and rocking from side to side. Then the nose suddenly dipped and it just crashed into the ground. There was this big fireball and then a huge cloud of smoke." Source


I was reading this supposed witness statement and sounds just like the Harley guy, just so specific as to the OS.

weird isn't it, that some people can give information in such detail.



posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rewey
But HERE'S WHAT I CAN'T BUY...

I can't buy that the ground was 'soft enough that it swallowed an entire plane', but right next to it the ground was so hard that it 'disintegrated the entire tail fin into tiny pieces' (my paraphrasing here, not direct quotes).

It seems you can't have it both ways - either the ground was hard enough to disintegrate the plane, or it was soft enough to swallow it whole. Surely it's that simple?

Good observation.

How do skeptics explain this phenomenon?



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 11:25 PM
link   
The tail is carbon fiber, not aluminum. Carbon fiber does shatter into very small peices.



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Yep...all these people were "in" on it...

wtc7lies.googlepages.com...



posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 08:56 PM
link   
Oh yeah...these guys were definitely in on it....




Shanksville VFD firefighter Keith Curtis: "I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater. It was a big tire. I was thinking that this is a big jet. I hit it good with the hose and put it out. I stopped and 'poof,' it just started on fire again."





Firefighter Mike Sube: "We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there. ...There were enough fires that our brush truck was down there numerous times. ...I saw small pieces of human remains and occasionally some larger pieces. That was disturbing, but what was most disturbing was seeing personal effects."





Lieutenant Roger Bailey, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department: "We started down through the debris field. I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail...Mail was scattered everywhere. ...the one guy who was with us almost stepped on a piece of human remains. I grabbed him, and he got about half woozy over it."





Bill Baker, Somerset County Emergency Management Agency: "There was debris everywhere. You couldn't step without walking on a piece of plane part, fabric, or some kind of debris. When they said it was a 757, I looked out across the debris field. I said, "There is no way there is a 757 scattered here. At that time, we didn't know that it was in the hole. The jet fuel smell was really strong...There were plane parts hanging in the trees."


"Courage After the Crash: Flight 93" by Glenn J. Kashurba. SAJ Publishing, 2002




Fox stepped over a seat back. He saw a wiring harness, and a piston. None of the other pieces was bigger than a TV remote.


www.pittsburghlive.com...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join